The first experimental measurement of God; to a 2-decimal point accuracy

[George E Hammond]

You didn't respond to what I said.

- my point being that Davy's criticism of Faraday did not make Faraday right and Bowden's criticism of you does not make you right.

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Bowden's criticism did not contain
any specific scientific content.

Your comment contains even less.

Until someone makes a (major and
fundamental) comprehensive science
containing comment, of course I will
not reply.

Especially I will not reply to anyone who
is stupid enough to think that this is a
"entertaining crank beatdown"
sideshow" and not a highly competent
scientific discussion!

George

 

[Baldeee]

People have already made plenty of "(major and fundamental) comprehensive science containing comment".
The issue is not with them but with your dishonest failure to address them.

This thread is also far from being a "highly competent scientific discussion" for the simple reason that you are the only one defending your "proof", and you are clearly not competent.

You continue to be a dishonest delusional crank.
There is no longer any enjoyment (for me at least) in continually beating you down.
Mostly I just feel pity.
For you, for this "proof" being the culmination and focus of your efforts, when you seem to be the only one who can not accept that it is utter garbage, ignoring everything that shows it to be, ignoring all the challenges against it.
I pity you.
Get help, Mr. Hammond.

And please stop posting here.
We're not at the forefront of scientific discussion, and may be the last place serious scientists consider, but even we have standards of behaviour, which you continually fail to uphold.

I pity you, you poor, dishonest, delusional, narcissistic crank.

 

[George E Hammond]

People have already made plenty of "(major and fundamental) comprehensive science containing comment".

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Baldeee, your above statement is more
than an exaggeration – it is an outright lie.

You have no scientific credentials.
You wouldn't know –

Statistical covariance from
Relativistic covariance

You wouldn't know a
Christoffel symbol from
a reverse traced Ricci tensor

None of your tediously droning
comments rise to the level of
scientific competence needed to
comprehend this theory.

Your monotonous spew of
ad hominem remarks
labels you as a wannabe
crankbaiter on the prowl
for a soft target in front of
an unsuspecting scientific
audience.

Your exaggerated and uneducated
performance in view of the
sophistication and significance of
the subject is nothing less than
disgusting !

Prof. Bowden's hasty retreat
should clue you in to the
tremendously powerful
scientific rat–trap that is
about to spring closed on
an unsophisticated fraud
like you.

George

 

[James R]

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Dr. Athel Cornish-Bowden
Directeur de Rcherche Émérite au CNRS
(French National Centre for Scientific Research)
Marseille France

Has apparently had 2nd thoughts about making
any further wiseguy comments about my
post #1297 which was originally posted on
sci.physics.relativity on June 12, 2022

After making his preliminary wiseguy
remarks, my last post apparently has
scared him off [snip]

More likely, what actually happened was that Dr Cornish-Bowden realised that he was wasting his time trying to talk to a crank, and he decided he had better things to do with his time.

That's what most of us have decided here, too.

 

[James R]

Baldeee, your above statement is more
than an exaggeration – it is an outright lie.

You have no scientific credentials.
You wouldn't know –

Moderator note: George E Hammond has been warned for a second time not to post personal accusations that he cannot support with appropriate evidence.

Due to accumulated warning points, Hammond will be taking a day off.

 

[sideshowbob]

Bowden's criticism did not contain
any specific scientific content.

Your comment contains even less.

Pointing out that YOUR post does not contain any scientific content IS scientific comment.

 

[George E Hammond]

[GE Hammond MS physics]

IS GOD A BLACK HOLE ?

Hammond has proved that God is a (large)
Einsteinian curvature of SUBJECTIVE spacetime

God is caused by a curvature so large that
similar curvatures in objective spacetime are
only caused by Black Holes !

Perhaps this is what Sir Roger Penrose meant
when he remarked that "the brain is the only known
device that can detect quantum gravity".

And, because of this the average adult sees a reality
that appears 10 to 20% LARGER and FASTER than it
actually is as measured by clocks and rulers ! And
this explains the "Sound and the Fury" of life.

A GEDANKEN EXPERIMENT
TO MEASURE GOD

It is a common fact of life that children grow at the
rate of about 5% per year for the first 20 years of
their life.
It is also a common fact of life that child
intelligence increases nearly linearly with age and
this is proven by the universal fact that raw
intelligence is divided by age to obtain IQ.
It is also known that the principle biological
correlate of intelligence is "mental speed". This was
first effectively "measured" by Thomas Edison when
he invented the movie projector and discovered that
the average person of average intelligence required
a frame rate of 16 frames/sec – IOW the perceptual
speed of the average person is 16 bits/sec.
Edison also noticed that the speed, like intelligence
itself, increases linearly with age in children.
Okay, this means that as a person "grows up"
the world, for 20 years, appears to get SMALLER
and SLOWER.
This means for instance if a child grows up in
Holland within view of a distant windmill, as the
child grows up year-by-year, the windmill will
appear to get smaller and smaller, and turn slower
and slower.
So can we mathematically quantify this? Yes, we
can. Let us define a magnification factor "a" which
starts at say 3.5 when a child is born and
DECREASES to 1.18 when the child reaches age 18.
(we only reach 85% full growth, and 1/.85=1.18
and this residual magnification is known as "God")
This means that the size of the windmill has to be
multiplied by "a" and that the number of seconds
per revolution has to be divided by "a". This means
that the "subjective metric" of space-time is given
by:

THE SUBJECTIVE METRIC OF SPACETIME
then, is given by:

| a^2 0 0 0 |
| 0 a^2 0 0 |
| 0 0 a^2 0 |
| 0 0 0 -1/a^2 |

And as all physicist know, the CURVATURE
of the space-time can be calculated from the metric.

Plugging this metric into a computer program
(I am using the MAXIMA program) we find that
The TOTAL CURVATURE (Ricci scalar curvature
turns out to be:

R = 6a (a..) + 12 (a.)^2

where (a..) = 2nd derivative w.r.t. Time
and (a.) = 1st derivative w.r.t. Time

And it turns out 12 of the Riemann Tensor, components are nonzero and are also proportional
to (a.)^2 and 4 of the Einstein Tensor components
are also nonzero and proportional to (a.)^2

A full printout of this MAXIMA computation may be
seen at:

https://www.academia.edu/82105046/MAXIMA_curvature_calculation

In order to post that here I would have to convert it
to laTex which is tedious – so I simply posted the
MAXIMA printout on my website for your
convenience instead.

OKAY – what all of this mathematically proves is
that:

SUBJECTIVE SPACETIME EXHIBITS
A (large) EINSTEINIAN CURVATURE

Now elsewhere (on this Sciforums thread) I have
demonstrated how modern PSYCHOMETRY has
(due to Hammond) shown that this curvature
is actually the "GOD OF THE BIBLE".

Thus we finally conclude that: –

GOD IS A (large) EINSTEINIAN CURVATURE
OF SUBJECTIVE SPACETIME

George

 

[Write4U]

GOD IS A (large) EINSTEINIAN CURVATURE OF SUBJECTIVE SPACETIME

Does that mean God was created at the same time as Spacetime?

If not, what came first, God or the Einsteinian Curvature of Subjective (?) Spacetime?

Is there such a thing as subjective spacetime? What does that look like?

 

[George E Hammond]

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Hi Write4U,
Let me answer your first 2 questions before I answer
the 3rd one: –

Does that mean God was created at
the same time as Spacetime?
If not, what came first, God or the Einsteinian
Curvature of Subjective (?) Spacetime?

[GE Hammond MS physics]
There exists 2 different "CREATIONS" –

1. – Physical Creation: "the Big Bang" 14 billion years ago
2. – Biblical Creation: "Creation of Man" 300,000 years ago

The point is that "Human Reality" was only created 300,000
years ago. There was no such thing as "Human Reality"
before that time.

Therefore it is possible "psychologically" to say that
"the universe was created 300,000 years ago" because
The Universe only exists in human reality and human
reality is only 300,000 years old.

On the other hand, scientists tell you that there is such
a thing as "Absolute Reality" which can be physically
measured with clocks and rulers – and according to that
the Universe is 14 billion years old.

BOTH WAYS OF LOOKING AT IT ARE CORRECT

HOWEVER – there is another consideration to be
reckoned with – and that is the fact that "Human Reality"
DOES NOT EXACTLY COINCIDE with "Absolute Reality".

It turns out that there is about a 15 to 20% DIFFERENCE
between Human Reality And Absolute Reality. And this
is caused by the fact that NO ONE EVER REACHES
FULL GROWTH – the entire world population on average
is 15 to 20% short of full growth !

And this causes a 15 to 20% DIFFERENCE between
"Human Reality" and "Absolute Reality – and this
15 to 20% difference is commonly referred to as
THE PHENOMENON OF GOD

And because of this no one can actually SEE Absolute
Reality – what they actually see is properly called
SUBJECTIVE REALITY.
And that statement answers your 3rd question:

Is there such a thing as subjective spacetime?
What does that look like?

[GE Hammond MS physics]
"Subjective Space-Time" is what you ACTUALLY SEE.
And everyone of us sees something slightly different –
because we are all in various different degrees of "growth".
Some people have a growth deficit of 10%, some 15%,
some 20%, in the Third World you can find people with
A Growth Deficit of 30 or 40%.

They are NOT SEEING the same thing you are seeing.
And this difference phenomenon is referred to historically
as "God".

Okay, I won't beleaguer the point, but believe me when
I say that BOTH The Theologians And the Scientists
are correct.
George

PS – what do you think of my "GOD METRIC"

| (a^2) 0 0 0 |
|0 (a^2) 0 0 |
|0 0 (a^2) 0 |
|0 0 0 (-1/a^2)|

And the fact that it turns out to have a
"LARGE EINSTEINIAN CURVATURE"
just like a said it does ?
George

PPS: – You know – since I've now discovered that the
"God curvature" of subjective space-time is so
enormously large (Black Hole sized) that I'm beginning
to see that it is actual scientific evidence that the entire
ball of wax phenomena of "God, Heaven, Death" etc.
is somehow probably all wrapped up in a gravitational
Black Hole type of phenomena – probally at the
Quantum Gravity level in the brain ! Christ – can you
imagine that – there actually might be life after death –
and BTW it probably involves Microtubules !
George

 

[Baldeee]

Please stop talking garbage.
Even in the above drivel there are inconsistencies/flaws that you seem oblivious to, as long as you make it sound "scientific".

To wit:

and human reality is only 300,000 years old.

"Human reality" - 300k years.

... scientists tell you that there is such a thing as "Absolute Reality"... and according to that the Universe is 14 billion years old.

"Absolute reality" - 14,000k years

HOWEVER... "Human Reality" DOES NOT EXACTLY COINCIDE with "Absolute Reality".

Sure, even by what you have previously said, and if we accept your notions, there is two orders of magnitude difference between them.
That's not quite "does not exactly coincide" but is "are vastly different".

It turns out that there is about a 15 to 20% DIFFERENCE between Human Reality And Absolute Reality.

Difference between 300k and 14,000k is 15-20%?
I guess that's about as reasonable a claim as the rest of the garbage you spout.
Unfortunately it is simply another example of you not really understanding that your thoughts do need to be logically consistent if they're not to be torn to shreds, especially if you put stock in those thoughts such as, well, working toward a "proof".
Unfortunately your "proof" suffers from such throughout, and this latest proof is just more of the same.
Garbage.
And you've wasted the past 20 years or so on it.
I would actually feel sorry for you if you weren't also so utterly dishonest and pathetic.

...the entire world population on average is 15 to 20% short of full growth !

And you're still spouting this garbage even though it has been shown to you that your interpretation and understanding of the data you claimed you used is flawed.

Seriously, Mr. Hammond, just stop.
Stop making even more a fool of yourself than you already have.
You're dishonest, you're delusional, you're a crank of the highest order, and a despicable person to boot.
You are also one step from being banned from this place - which really says it all for your capabilities and integrity.
Please, kindly, just fuck off.
No one cares for your "proof" - because it really is garbage.
Get the psychological help you clearly need (and are using this site for) from someone else.
Preferably someone qualified to deal with your issues.

 

[George E Hammond]

Please stop talking garbage.
Garbage.
spouting this garbage
You're dishonest, you're delusional, you're a crank
of the highest order, and a despicable person to boot.
just fuck off.

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Baldeee – your post has been reported to the moderator
for reason of: –
profanity, inappropriate content, inappropriate behavior

George

 

[Kristoffer]

Give it up, George. No one here is buying your crank "theory".
The extreme font size doesn't make your argument anymore meaningful.

I also don't think you reporting legitimate criticism of your Einsteinian curvature bs helps your case.

I, and I am sincere here, hope you get over yourself and your bs attempt at proving the unprovable.

 

[George E Hammond]

Give it up, George. No one here is buying your crank "theory".
The extreme font size doesn't make your argument anymore meaningful.

I also don't think you reporting legitimate criticism of your Einsteinian curvature bs helps your case.

I, and I am sincere here, hope you get over yourself and your bs attempt at proving the unprovable.

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Kristoffer – your post has been reported to
the moderator for the reason of –

No scientific content,
persecutory ad hominem content

George

 

[George E Hammond]

[GE Hammond MS physics]

A GEDANKEN EXPERIMENT
TO MEASURE GOD

This means for instance if a child grows up in
Holland within view of a distant windmill, as the
child grows up year-by-year, the windmill will
appear to get smaller and smaller, and turn slower
and slower.
So can we mathematically quantify this? Yes, we
can. Let us define a magnification factor "a" which
starts at say 3.5 when a child is born and
DECREASES to 1.18 when the child reaches age 18.
(we only reach 85% full growth, and 1/.85=1.18
and this residual magnification is known as "God")
This means that the size of the windmill has to be
multiplied by "a" and that the number of seconds
per revolution has to be divided by "a". This means
that the "subjective metric" of space-time is given
by:

| a^2 0 0 0 |
| 0 a^2 0 0 |
| 0 0 a^2 0 |
| 0 0 0 -1/a^2 |

And as all physicist know, the CURVATURE
of the space-time can be calculated from the metric.

Plugging this metric into a computer program
(I am using the MAXIMA program) we find that
The TOTAL CURVATURE (Ricci scalar curvature
turns out to be:

R = 6a (a..) + 12 (a.)^2

where (a..) = 2nd derivative w.r.t. time
and (a.) = 1st derivative w.r.t. time

And it turns out 12 of the Riemann Tensor
components are nonzero and are also proportional
to (a.)^2 and 4 of the Einstein Tensor components
are also nonzero and proportional to (a.)^2

A full printout of this MAXIMA computation may be
seen at:

https://www.academia.edu/82105046/MAXIMA_curvature_calculation

Thus we finally conclude that: –

GOD IS A (large) EINSTEINIAN CURVATURE
OF SUBJECTIVE SPACETIME

George

[GE Hammond MS physics]
Someone has questioned where the magnification a=3.5
comes from in the above quote from post#1307.

A newborn child is 20 inches tall, while an adult is
70 inches tall – 70/20 = 3.5 magnification.

Likewise – the average person (worldwide average)
only reaches about 85% of full growth, and
1/.85 = 1.18 magnification.

So the magnification begins at 3.5 at birth and drops
to 1.18 at adulthood.

George

 

[Baldeee]

Someone has questioned where the magnification a=3.5 comes from in the above quote from post#1307.

Noone questioned it here, because it is garbage, like the rest of your "proof".
And there would be little point in questioning one small aspect when you have so far failed to address the gaping holes in the rest of it.
But anyway, I'm glad you decided to post an explanation, because if nothing else it highlights how shoddy your capabilities really are:

To wit:

A newborn child is 20 inches tall, while an adult is 70 inches tall – 70/20 = 3.5 magnification.

I'm really hoping you haven't just taken statistics for the US male.
That would be a shame.
This report suggests 69 inches for the average adult male in the US.
However, the average woman only 64 inches.
With a roughly 50:50 ratio, you'd expect US average to be 67 inches, not 70.

But then what about the world as a whole?
This report suggests 171cm (67.3 inches) for men and 159cm (62.6 inches) for women.

But, hey, who cares about any rigour or accuracy, right!

It gets worse...

Likewise – the average person (worldwide average) only reaches about 85% of full growth, and 1/.85 = 1.18 magnification.

Back to the same garbage that you've already spouted and has been shown to be based on flawed interpretation of data.
You're a joke, Mr. Hammond.

Still, it gets worse...

So the magnification begins at 3.5 at birth and drops to 1.18 at adulthood.

If the 1.18 is based on only achieving 85% of full growth (per your flawed analysis) then why are you comparing the size of a newborn to that of someone only 85% of their "full growth"?
Surely the initial number should not be 3.5 but 3.5/85% = 4.1

So you can't even think logically and consistently.
Even in such a small bit of analysis.
It's just an example of lack of rigour and thought that your "proof" is littered with, even before the gaping holes already raised (and still unaddressed by you).

But, again, what's a little more garbage to a delusional dishonest crank when they've already produced a steaming pile of it, eh!

 

[James R]

Moderator note: George E Hammond has been permanently banned.

It's time to call it on this nonsense. Mr Hammond hasn't managed to defend his position so far, and if it hasn't happened in 1300+ posts, it's unlikely to happen. Worse that that, Mr Hammond appears to have run out of material and is just repeating his unproven claims at this point.

Since Mr Hammond is unwilling or unable to answer substantive objections to his claims, further discussion of these matters here is unlikely to be a productive use of our time.

I'm sure that Hammond can be found elsewhere on the internet, if anybody is interested in following this up.